I read as you do, and as the provided linked page explains, but how is it described in the book?
If the general tone of the "Meetings are toxic" chapter (passage?) is such as "you're dumb for even trying to attend, let alone organize, a meeting", then recognizing that some meetings can be good, as a footnote to a stronger idea of toxicity to most meetings, shows a lack of understanding of importance of good meetings from the author. While if the opposite is true, and the book tries to show how good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good, than the reviewer did not read (or understood) what he's criticizing.
If the general tone of the "Meetings are toxic" chapter (passage?) is such as "you're dumb for even trying to attend, let alone organize, a meeting", then recognizing that some meetings can be good, as a footnote to a stronger idea of toxicity to most meetings, shows a lack of understanding of importance of good meetings from the author. While if the opposite is true, and the book tries to show how good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good, than the reviewer did not read (or understood) what he's criticizing.